RECOM Combustion Modelling Technology 2018 For Uitsolutions

Reaction and Combustion Modeling (RECOM) –
Advanced 3D-Combustion Modelling Technology

for Optimizing Industrial Plants
Dr. Benedetto Risio, Dr. Xiaohai Han

RECOM Services GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany
Customers that use RECOM – Modeling Technology
Customer base comprises original equipment manufacturers
as well as plant operators of the power and process industry
RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 2

RECOM Services GmbH – Applications and Problems to be Solved
Waste- and
Biomass-
Incineration
Pulverised
Fuel Firing in Complex Duct Flows in
Power Plants Industrial Processes
Problems in Industrial Combustion Systems

• Emission Control (NOX, CO, SOX, Unburnt)
• Efficiency Increase (Maximizing Burnout and
Reduction of CO2 Emissions)
• Increasing Plant Availability and Maximizing Lifetime
(Avoiding Deposits, Corrosion and Material Overheating)
• Fuel Changes (Varying Fuel Type and Properties) Production Gas- and Oil-
Natural Gas Firing in Firing in Chemical and
District Heating Plants Steel Plants
Simulation of the real combustion process with RECOM-Technology
High Resolution (30-50 Mio. cells) Visualisation of simulation results
3D-Boiler Model (e.g. in VR-Environment)
Simulation on enables:
Supercomputer Cray XC40 at the - detailed analysis of the
High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) combustion process
- identification of the relevant
mechanisms
- minimizing NOx-formation
and excess oxygen
- avoiding CO-Peaks
-…

Advantages of using HPC for Combustion Modelling
High Resolution (30-50 Mio. cells)  Significantly higher spatial resolution
3D-Boiler Model in the models is possible
 Significantly more complex physical/ chemical
sub models can be applied
 Fest Turnaround for individual simulations of
less than 24h are achieveable
 Automatic Optimization with
Genetic Algorithms is also realizable
 Enables pre-competitive research for the next
generation simulation services
Simulation on
Supercomputer Cray XC40 at the
High Performance Computing Center (HLRS)

Detailed insight through Virtual Reality (VR) Visualization
 Stuttgart University has a five side CAVE.

RECOM regularly uses this installation in cooperation with the Stuttgart
High-Performance Computing Center for the 3D-analysis
of the combustion and heat transfer processes in
industrial scale firing systems.
 Virtual Reality (VR) helps understanding 3-dimensional

phenomena as well as complex interactions of the different
streams in an industrial scale firing system, and enables
conclusions which would otherwise remain unrecognized.

VR Visualization – Simulation Results combined with 3D-Laser Scan Data
3D-CFD Simulation Software RECOM-AIOLOS
RECOM-AIOLOS contains a tailored model setup for the description of:
 Fluid Flow and Turbulence
 Multi-Phase continuum mechanics: solid fuels (e.g. biomass, lignite,
bituminous coal, anthrazite), liquid fuels (e.g. light and heavy fuel oil,
VFCR, HSCR), gaseous fuels (e.g. natural gas, coke oven gas, blast
furnace gas, syngas from biomass gasification, etc.)
 Combustion chemistry and pollutant formation (species transport,
reaction kinetics, etc.) for solid, liquid and gaseous fuels.
 Heat transfer (radiation and convection)
 Deposit formation (slagging and fouling)
RECOM-AIOLOS predictions are validated against

measured data from more than 100 power plants.

3D-Boiler Model before Low NOx Retrofit
Exit
ECO
RH 1
Superheater 3
RH 2
Superheater 4
Superheater 2
Support Tubes
Burner Level 4
Burner Level 3
Burner Level 2
Burner Level 1

Reliable O2-Predictions in front of a full scale coal burner
The measurements are shown in blue.
Since concentration measurement are done with a suction probe,
minimum and maximum concentrations (red lines) in the relevant suction volume
of the probe are used for comparison between measured and calculated values.
Burner Level 4 (31,2 m) 0,44 m Distance from rear wall
22 suction probe
Measured
Messung
20
[vol.-%, tr.]
-Konzentration[vol.-%,dry]
O2
18 Calculated
Simulation
14 [vol.-%, dr.]
16
12
14
10
12
O22-concentration
Burner
10 8
axis
8 6
Mittelwand [m]
6 4
4
2
2
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0 1 2 3 4
Front wall [m]
Distance
Abstandfrom
zurfurnace wall [m] [m]
Feuerraumwand

Reliable CO-Predictions in front of a full scale coal burner
12 suction probe
Measured
Messung
[vol.-%, tr.]
CO-Konzentration[vol.-%,dry]
CO
10 Simulation
Calculated
14 [vol.-%, dr.]
12
8
10
CO-concentration
6 Burner
8
axis
6
4
Mittelwand [m]
4
2 2
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0 1 2 3 4
Front wall [m]
Distance
Abstandfrom
zurfurnace wall [m] [m]
Feuerraumwand

Reliable NO-Predictions in front of a full scale coal burner
1000 suction probe
Messung
Measured
900
[ppmv, tr.]
NO-Konzentration[ppmv,dry]
NO
Simulation
Calculated
800 14 [vppm, tr.]
700 12
600 10
NO-concentration
500 Burner
8
400 axis
6
Mittelwand [m]
300
4
200
2
100
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0 1 2 3 4
Front wall [m]
Distance
Abstandfrom furnace wall [m] [m]
zur Feuerraumwand

3D-Boiler Model after Low NOx Retrofit
Exit
ECO
RH 1
Superheater 3
RH 2
Superheater 4
Superheater 2
Support Tubes
Burner Level 4
Burner Level 3
Burner Level 2
Burner Level 1

Chemical Composition of Raw Coals
Situation
Before Low NOx Retrofit After Low NOx Retrofit
South Africa Russia South Africa

(70%) (30%) (100%)
C (a.r.) [%] 67,23 60,98 64,57
H (a.r.) [%] 3,65 4,12 3,49
O (a.r.) [%] 6,57 8,01 6,76
N (a.r.) [%] 1,52 1,85 1,55
S (a.r.) [%] 0,52 0,30 0,52
Ash(a.r.) [%] 13,35 12,05 13,4
Moisture (a.r.) [%] 7,16 12,69 9,73
LCV (a.r.) [MJ/kg] 25,5 23,9 24,1
Volatiles (daf) [%] 29,6 41,2 29,8

Reliable Predictions for both Scenarios
Before Low NOx Retrofit After Low NOx Retrofit

(Exit-O2 = 4,3 Vol.-%,dry) (Exit-O2 = 4,1 Vol.-%,dry)
Measurement Simulation Measurement Simulation
NOx [mg/Nm3@6%O2] 1092 1110 465 466
CO [mg/Nm3@6%O2] 20 15 26 22
UBC in Fly Ash [wt.-%] 2,8 2,9 3,2 3,1
CO-Isosurface
1 Vol.-% CO

Validation for a tangentially fired boiler with Overfire Air (OFA)
Upper Air
OFA
Coal
Middle Air
Coal
Separate Lower Air

OFA
Upper Air
Coal
Middle Air
Coal
Lower Air
Furnace
Burner
Reliable prediction of staged and unstaged boiler operation
Strongly Staged Medium Staged Weakly Staged

Combustion Combustion Combustion
l Main Comb. Zone = 0,92 l Main Comb. Zone = 1,02 l Main Comb. Zone = 1,13
Measured Simulation Measured Simulation Measured Simulation
CO [mg/Nm3] 217 286 39.5 43.7 16.4 29
NOx [mg/Nm3] 290 316 429 405 555 578
C in Ash [wt.-%] 3.8 4.5 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.0

Reliable prediction of exit values for Biomass Co-Combustion
in a front wall fired coal boiler
Coal &
Coal
Biomass
80% Coal
100% Coal
20% Biomass
Measured Simulation Measured Simulation
NOx
374 343 321 297
[mg/Nm3,6% O2]
CO
14 19 21 34
[mg/Nm3 ,6% O2]
Carbon in
9
Fly Ash 8,1 16,8 16,7
(8-10)
[wt.-%]

Reliable prediction of exit values for 100% Biomass
Combustion in a tangential fired boiler
100% Wood Pellets
Measured Simulation
NOx [mg/Nm3 ,@ 6% O2] 137 136
28
CO [mg/Nm3,@ 6% O2] 24
(8 – 305)
Carbon in Fly Ash [wt.-%] 17 – 18 24

Reliable prediction of Temperature distribution @ Nose Level
for 100% Biomass Combustion
Temperature
Road
[°C]
1400
Measurement
8
1300 Simulation
1200 6
Temperature [°C]
Left Side Wall [m]

1100
4
1000
2
900
800 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 2 4 6 8
Front Wall [m]
Distance to Furnacewall [m]

Temperature
Huy 28-F1
[°C]
1400
Measurement
8
1300 Simulation
1200 6
Temperature [°C]
Left Side Wall [m]

1100
4
1000
2
900
800 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 2 4 6 8
Front Wall [m]

Temperature
Huy 28-F2
[°C]
1400
Measurement
8
1300 Simulation
1200 6
Temperature [°C]
Left Side Wall [m]

1100
4
1000
2
900
800 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 2 4 6 8
Front Wall [m]

Reliable Prediction for a Slag-Tap Boiler
Part Load 153 MW Full Load 838 MW Load 820 MW

Anthracite Anthracite South African Coal
Measured Simulation Measured Simulation Measured Simulation
CO [mg/Nm3] 49 / 44 44 18 / 11 10 10 ~ 15 5
1052 2328
NOx [mg/Nm3] 1002 2557 1592 ~ 1877 1860
(747 – 1196) (1710 – 2452)
UBC in Fly Ash [wt.-%] < 16 11,4 ~ 5,3 4,0 -- 1,0

Reliable prediction of lignite boiler operation
Thermal Load [%] 82 102
NO [mg/Nm3,6% O2]
ø 147 148
ø 169 173
(127 – 183) (148 – 198)
CO [mg/Nm3,6% O2]
ø 15 10
ø 23 17
(9 – 19) (20 – 24)
Heat to evaporator [MW] 684 688 776 767

Reliable prediction of temperature distribution
Temperature
[°C]
Level 96,8m
(AGAM)
Level 96,8m
OFA 3
Fluegas
Recirculation
OFA 2
OFA 1
Level 20
Level 10

Temperature distribution verified with acoustic pyrometry
AGAM Measurement Level (96,8 m)

Measurement
Difference
Temperature Path Average Simulation
22 to Average
[°C] (Variation)
20
1130 °C
18 21 1161 °C 31 K
(1098-1161)
16
23 24 1147 °C
14 22 1157 °C 10 K
(1114-1178)
12
1141 °C
10 23 1142 °C 1K
(1114-1173)
8 22 21
1159 °C
Left Sidewall [m]
6 24 1169 °C 10 K
(1135-1216)
4
2
Measurement
0 Difference
Path Average Simulation
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 to Average
(Variation)
Front Wall [m]
1112 °
All 1121 °C 9K
(1097-1127)

Reliable prediction of lignite boiler operation co-firing pre-dried lignite(TBK)
Main Burner of Mill 6 and TBK-Burner Vapour Burner of Mill 6

Reliable prediction of lignite boiler operation co-firing pre-dried lignite(TBK)
Measured Simulation
Thermal Load
79/21 TBK
raw / pre-dried lignite [%]
ø 187 Burner Level (24,8 m)
NOx [mg/Nm3,6% O2] 188
(138– 210) 1 8
Temperature
CO [mg/Nm3,6% O2]
ø4 8 22 [°C]
(1 – 10)
2 20
7
Isosurface 18
1200 °C
Left Sidewall [m]

OFA Level 2 16
FGR 14
12
OFA Level 1
10
8
6
Vapour Burner 3 4 6
2
Main Burner
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
4 Right Sidewall [m] 5

Project Example
Increasing Efficiency and Minimizing Emissions
in a 300 MWe Bituminous Coal Unit
General approach for a simulation-based analysis
 Setting up a number of baseline simulations (at relevant load levels) for the
actual situation at the plant
 Collecting all geometry and operation data of the unit
 Converting the plant data into the geometry model and the input data set
(mass flow distribution, heat transfer to individual heating surfaces, fuel
properties, etc.) for the boiler simulation software
 Running the baseline simulations and validation of the simulated values

against field measurements at the plant to demonstrate reliability of the model
 Comprehensive analysis of the combustion situation at the plant and deriving

measures for conceptual improvement.
 Testing the measures for conceptual improvement in the virtual reality of the
boiler model to identify the most efficient measures for the realization.

3D-Geometry Model for Boiler & SCR Reactor of 300 MWe Unit
ECO
Reheater 1
Superheater 4
Reheater 2
Superheater 3
Supporttubes
OFA-Level OFA-Level
Burner level 3 Burner level 3

Reliable prediction of burnout and emissions for the 300 MWe Unit
Full Load (100%) Minimum Load (28%)

424 542
NOx [mg/Nm3@6%O2] 431 598
(411 – 441) (508 – 586)
23 31
CO [mg/Nm3@6%O2] 20 26
(20 – 26) (30 – 31)
Carbon in Fly Ash [wt.-%] 4,0 – 4,5 4,5 2,0-3,0 2,1

Analysis of heat release in the Boiler Model at full load
Temperature
[°C]
OFA-Level
Burner level 3
Burner level 2
Burner level 1

Analysis of local stoichiometry in the Boiler Model at full load
O2
[Vol.-%, dry]
OFA-Level
Burner level 3
Burner level 2
Burner level 1

Analysis of NO-formation in the Boiler Model at full load
NO
[ppmv, dry]
OFA-Level
Burner level 3
Burner level 2
Burner level 1

Analysis of Overfire Air (OFA) Efficiency at full load
Oxygen Char CO
[vol.-%, dry] [kg/kg] [vol.-%, dry]
Insufficient OFA
Mixing Identified
which reduces the burnout
Iso-Surface 8 Vol.-% O2 Iso-Surface 0,003 kg/kg Char Iso-Surface 1,0 Vol.-% CO

Identification of the root cause for the OFA inefficiency
 OFA Distribution is determined by

Original Situation
manual dampers
10,98 Nm³/s
 The OFA distribution has been optmized

by manually varying the damper settings
during commissioning.
10,07 Nm³/s
9,74 Nm³/s
S 42,67 Nm³/s
 Are these the best settings?
The answer to this question is found

with an automatic optimization using
a genetic algorithm.
11,88 Nm³/s

Workflow of a Genetic Algorithm (GA)
Damper Characteristic of the OFA-Nozzle

Binary Coding
Region for Optimization
Generation of new Variations
Volumen Flow [%]

Selection, Recombination,
Mutation
Evaluation
3 2 1
Measurement
Approximated Fit
6
4 Point-Symmetry of
Damper Settings in 5 Opening [%]
5 the OFA
4
6 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85
Discretisation:
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
For the selected Discretisation the search space
covers 262.144 possible combinations
Original Situation

Optimum Found (Generation 9, after 700 virtual trials)

OFA Efficiency: Original Situation
Oxygen Char CO

OFA Efficiency: Optimized setting for the OFA found by the GA
Oxygen Char CO

OFA Efficiency: Optimised setting for OFA allows reduction of total l
Oxygen Char CO
Optimized OFA Mixing

maintains good burnout
at reduced excess oxygen

Measured versus Simulated Boiler Performance
Original Situation
before Optimization Optimized Situation
Exit-O2 = 3,7 Vol.-%,dry Exit-O2 = 2,9 Vol.-%,dry
NOx 424 246 NOx before

431 279
[mg/Nm3@6%O2] (411 – 441) (240 – 257) catalyst is
CO 23 22 reduced by 42%
20 25
[mg/Nm3@6%O2] (20 – 26) (15 – 30)
C in Ash [Wt.-%] 4,0 – 4,5 4,5 0,5 – 0,7 0,9
The reduction of excess-oxygen leads to a higher efficiency of the plant

(reduced exit loss and power consumption of FD fan).
The resulting total savings in fuel consumption were around
125.000 € per year which converts into a CO2 reduction of
around 16.000 t/year.

NH3-Injection at the catalyst
Before After
Optimization Optimization
Total NH3 injection
131.1 67.4
NH3 (Nm3/h)
[ppmv, dry]
Total carrying air
~ 7350 ~ 7300
(Nm3/h)
[NH3]/[NO] ratio ~ 0.74 ~ 0.58
The reduced NOx level led to cost savings for Ammonia in

the catalyst of roughly 100.000 € per year

Conclusions
 RECOM’s 3D-Combustion Modelling Technology, which is validated

against full scale field data, is a powerful tool for the computer-aided
optimisation of operation parameters and for the assessment of changes
in combustion equipment design in power stations.
 In the current example cost savings of 225.000 € per year were achieved
and the cost for simulation paid off in less than a year.
 The comprehensive information delivered by the combustion model

allows to pursue only the most promising, already optimized measures in
the real world (=Significant Cost savings).
 Combustion problems are identified early in advance in the virtual reality

of the combustion model before they become expensive reality at the
plant.

RECOM Combustion Modelling Technology 2018 For Uitsolutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RECOM Combustion Modelling Technology 2018 For Uitsolutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reaction and Combustion Modeling (RECOM) –

Advanced 3D-Combustion Modelling Technology

Dr. Benedetto Risio, Dr. Xiaohai Han

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 2

Problems in Industrial Combustion Systems

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 4

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 5

 Stuttgart University has a five side CAVE.

 Virtual Reality (VR) helps understanding 3-dimensional

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 6

RECOM-AIOLOS predictions are validated against

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 10

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 11

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 12

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 13

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 14

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 15

Before Low NOx Retrofit After Low NOx Retrofit

South Africa Russia South Africa

H (a.r.) [%] 3,65 4,12 3,49

O (a.r.) [%] 6,57 8,01 6,76

N (a.r.) [%] 1,52 1,85 1,55

S (a.r.) [%] 0,52 0,30 0,52

Ash(a.r.) [%] 13,35 12,05 13,4

Moisture (a.r.) [%] 7,16 12,69 9,73

LCV (a.r.) [MJ/kg] 25,5 23,9 24,1

Volatiles (daf) [%] 29,6 41,2 29,8

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 16

Before Low NOx Retrofit After Low NOx Retrofit

NOx [mg/Nm3@6%O2] 1092 1110 465 466

UBC in Fly Ash [wt.-%] 2,8 2,9 3,2 3,1

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 17

Separate Lower Air

Strongly Staged Medium Staged Weakly Staged

Measured Simulation Measured Simulation Measured Simulation

CO [mg/Nm3] 217 286 39.5 43.7 16.4 29

NOx [mg/Nm3] 290 316 429 405 555 578

C in Ash [wt.-%] 3.8 4.5 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.0

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 19

Measured Simulation Measured Simulation

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 20

100% Wood Pellets

NOx [mg/Nm3 ,@ 6% O2] 137 136

Carbon in Fly Ash [wt.-%] 17 – 18 24

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 21

Left Side Wall [m]

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 22

Left Side Wall [m]

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 23

Left Side Wall [m]

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 24

Part Load 153 MW Full Load 838 MW Load 820 MW

Measured Simulation Measured Simulation Measured Simulation

UBC in Fly Ash [wt.-%] < 16 11,4 ~ 5,3 4,0 -- 1,0

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 25

Measured Simulation Measured Simulation

Thermal Load [%] 82 102

Heat to evaporator [MW] 684 688 776 767

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 26

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 27

AGAM Measurement Level (96,8 m)

RECOM Advanced Combustion Modeling Technology 28